مَلَك

Important Words:

تتلوا (followed). See 2:114

شیاطین (rebellious men). See 2:15.

علی (during) gives the sense of فی i.e. "in" or "during" (Aqrab & Mughni). It is also used to denote a hostile sense meaning "against", as one says خرج علیه i.e. he rebelled against him, or he went out against him with an army intending to fight (Wright). In this sense the phrase علی ملك سلیمان would mean, against the government of Solomon, or conspiring against his government.

سحر (falsehood and deception). In verbal senses سحرہ means, he deceived him; he coaxed him and involved him in trouble and deprived him of his understanding; he enchanted him. سحرالفضة means, he coated a piece of silver so as to make it look like gold. The noun سحر means, anything the source of which is not quite visible; showing off falsehood in the form of truth; a crafty device; craftiness; mischief; enchantment (Aqrab). It also means, producing what is false in the form of truth; any event of which the cause is hidden and which is imagined to be different from what it really is; embellishment by falsification and deceit (Lane). Thus every falsehood, deceit or crafty device which is meant to hide the real object from public view is included in the meaning of سحر.

ملكین (two angels) is the dual number from ملك (angel) for which see 2:31. Figuratively ملك is sometimes used to denote a handsome or holy person, as the Quran says, He (Joseph) is but a gracious angel, i.e. a handsome and pious youth (12:32). As in the verse under comment, the two angels are described as teaching something to the people, therefore the word cannot be taken in its literal significance, because angels do not live among men and do not generally have free intercourse with them (17:95, 96; 21:8). Thus in the present verse ملکین would not mean "two angels" in the literal sense of the word but "two holy men".

ھاروت (Harut) and ماروت (Marut) are both descriptive names. ھاروت is derived from ھرت which means, he tore up (Aqrab); hence ھاروت means, one who tears; the tearer. ماروت is derived from مرت which means, he broke (Aqrab & Lane). Thus ماروت means, one who breaks; the breaker. These names signify that the object of the appearance of these holy men was to 'tear' asunder and 'break' the glory and power of certain people.

فتنة (trial) means, the trial or means whereby the condition of a man may be demonstrated in respect of good or evil (Lane). They say فتن الصائغ الذھب i.e. the goldsmith melted the gold in the crucible so that its purity or impurity might be ascertained (Aqrab).

Commentary:

Many a legend unwarranted by the Quran and the Hadith—and even running contrary to them—clusters round this verse. It would be quite unreasonable to interpret it on the basis of those myths. For their true interpretation no external evidence is needed, the words being self-explanatory. It is clear from the verse itself that Jews in the time of the Holy Prophet were bent upon the same mischief which characterized them in the days of Solomon and during the days of their captivity in Babylon. The verse further indicates that the mischief-mongers of Solomon’s time were those "rebellious men" who called him an unbeliever. God says that those wicked men themselves, and not Solomon, lacked belief. Again, the verse tells us that these men taught their associates such signs as conveyed to them meanings quite different from those generally accepted, for the purpose of deceiving other people and concealing their own activities. All this leads to the conclusion that this verse alludes to those secret plots which the enemies of Solomon made against him, and by which they wished to break his empire. It is pointed out that now, in the time of the Holy Prophet, these people are resorting to the selfsame tactics, but that they will fail.

As the verse refers to a number of historical events, it is advisable to relate them here at some length.

When Jews saw that the power of Islam was steadily expanding and that no opposition from the Arabs had been able to arrest the progress of Muslims, they began to excite outsiders against them. At that time there were two large empires in the neighbourhood of Arabia: (1) The Byzantine or Eastern Roman Empire; and (2) The Persian Empire. As Jews were already at enmity with the Roman Government, because they were in constant trouble under it, so it was only the Persian Government to which they could look for support. Harassed by the oppression of Christian rulers, they had taken refuge in Persia, where they enjoyed a good deal of religious freedom, and their religious centre shifted from Judah and Jerusalem to Babylonia (Hutchinson’s History of the Nations, p.550). In the seventh century of the Christian era, i.e., during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet, Jews suffered exceptionally cruel persecution at the hands of the Christian Emperors of the Eastern Roman Empire. "Both Phocas and Heraclius", says the Historians’ History of the World (vol. 7, p. 175), "attempted to exterminate the Jewish religion, and if possible to put an end to their national existence. Heraclius not only practised every species of cruelty himself to effect this object within the bounds of his own dominions, but he even made the forced conversion or banishment of the Jews a prominent feature in his diplomacy." So, in the time of the Holy Prophet the only government to which the Jews could look for help was that of Persia, where their co-religionists enjoyed much influence, especially in the reign of Chosroes II (Jew. Enc., ix. 648).

Consequently, when the Jews saw that their efforts to check the progress of Islam had totally failed, they took to exciting the Persian Court against the Holy Prophet by various means; and as a result, Chosroes II issued orders to the Governor of Yemen to send to him the Arabian claimant as a captive. But when the envoys of the Governor came to the Holy Prophet, he asked them to see him the next day, when he told them that God had informed him that He had their king murdered. Thereupon they returned and related this incident to the Governor. A few days later, the Governor received a letter from Siroes, the son of Chosroes II, to the effect that he had killed his father on account of the latter’s tyranny and that the Governor should, on his behalf, renew the oath of allegiance from all the Chiefs of Yemen; and that the order of his father regarding an Arab should be considered as cancelled (Tabari, iii. 1573-1574).

Some historians, including Tabari himself, hold that it was the letter of the Holy Prophet to the king of Persia inviting him to Islam that was the occasion of his orders for the apprehension of the Holy Prophet. But on comparison of the dates of the above-mentioned events, this turns out to be a mistaken view. For, as we read in Zurqani (ii. 211-212), the letter in question was despatched from Medina on the first of Muharram, 7 A.H.–a date corresponding to 12th April, 628 A.D. (Lane under ھجرة); whereas Chosroes II, who sent orders for the arrest of the Holy Prophet, had been assassinated on the 29th of February, 628 A.D. (Historians’ History of the World, viii. 95). Thus the view that the letter of the Holy Prophet was the cause of Chosroes’ orders is quite untenable; and the only possible cause of Chosroes’ ignominious orders was that his ears had been poisoned by malicious reports, a fact admitted by Sir William Muir (The Life of Mahomet, p. 370). It is to these efforts of the Jews that the Quran alludes in the verse under comment.

The verse also points out that it was foolish on the part of the Jews to suppose that they would succeed in that way. Their attention is invited to the fact that they had already been responsible for two secret plots. The first was against Solomon, when some members of their community turned rebels, hatched plots and stirred up bitter feeling against him by calling him an infidel; whereas the infidels were those who opposed him, hurled imputations at him, and set up against him secret societies in which secret signs and symbols were taught. The Jews, however, themselves reaped the ill-reward of their sinister schemes: their power, as a consequence, fell into decay, and at last they became so powerless that they were driven into exile towards Babylon. This account of Jewish secret societies and conspiracies and treacherous signs and symbols, as alluded to in this verse, finds corroboration in the Bible (1 Kings 11:1-6), where we read that the charge of idol-worship was spread against Solomon. An account of his enemies is found in I Kings 11:14, 23, 26, and a reference to secret plots is met with in II Chron. 10: 2-4 where we learn that the Jews had sent for Jeroboam, a bitter enemy of Solomon, immediately after his death and had attempted to make Solomon’s son agree to some demands of theirs, involving certain imputations against Solomon, before his accession to the throne. We learn about the secret signs from I Kings 11:29-32, in which the ten tribes of the Israelites are likened to ten pieces of a garment, and Jeroboam is told that these ten tribes were on his side against Solomon; and so it proved to be, for on the death of Solomon, these ten tribes made Jeroboam their king (I Kings 12:20). Again, the reference of the Quran to the infidelity of Solomon’s enemies finds corroboration in II Chron. 11:15, from which we learn that his enemies, who falsely charged him with unbelief, themselves fell into idol-worship when they rose to power.

Besides the testimony of the Bible, there is other evidence to show that in the days of Solomon a secret society was at work against him. An old tradition, current among medieval Freemasons, indicates that Solomon was envious of the superior intelligence of Hiram, the chief architect who built the Temple at Jerusalem. He is said to have attempted to kill the great Mason by having him thrown into a tank of molten brass, but he was saved by the spirit of his ancestor, Cain, who prophesied that at last his people would get the better of their enemy. Solomon, however, as the tradition goes, had him afterwards put to death. It is said of him that he had fixed certain secret signs which were a sort of mystery known only to him and his associates (Secret Societies of the World, Volume II, pp. 1-8; as the original book could not be obtained, the reference is to an Urdu translation). We further learn from this book that before the period of the Accepted Masons, the same signs used in all the Lodges were current among the Masons of Solomon’s time (p. 11) and that at the time of initiation, the Hiram incident was related to the new member (pp. 29, 30). However incredible the story as a whole may be, it points at least to the conclusion that in one way or other, secret societies were associated with Solomon’s reign and were much in vogue in his time.

The second occasion when, according to the Quran, the Israelites had resort to secret societies was during their captivity in Babylon. But this time they were not acting against any Prophet but were, on the other hand, working under the leadership of two inspired personages, who were, in obedience to divine command, trying to bring about the deliverance of the Israelites. Their mission was to "tear asunder" and "break down" the empire of the enemies of the Israelites. These holy men told new members, at the time of initiation, that they were a sort of trial from God, serving to differentiate between the good and the bad, and that the Israelites should not therefore refuse to believe what they said, because this would lead them to infidelity. In their teachings they drew a distinction between males and females, confining membership to males only (this is an old practice found among most secret societies). It is also stated that the disciples of these holy men directed their activities against only those for whose chastisement they were commissioned by God.

In this narration, the Quran refers to the days when King Nebuchadnezzar brought the Jews as captives into Babylon and kept them there for a long time. The holy men referred to in the verse under comment were Haggai, the Prophet, and Zechariah, the son of Iddo (Ezra 5:1). When Cyrus, King of Media and Persia, rose to power, the Israelites entered into a secret agreement with him and greatly facilitated his conquest of Babylon. In return for this service, he not only allowed them to return to their own country but also helped in the rebuilding of the Temple (Historians’ History of the World, ii. 126).

After stating that the Jews of the Holy Prophet’s time were following the same course which was adopted by the rebels of Solomon’s days and which was later adopted by the Jews under two holy men in Babylon, it was necessary here to state the ultimate upshot of their efforts against the Holy Prophet, because on the two previous occasion’s their efforts had met with different results. On the first occasion the conspiracy of the Israelites, being directed against a Prophet of God, had ended in the total loss of their prestige and finally in their banishment to Babylon. On the second occasion, they took a similar course under two inspired personages and were successful. Hence, in order to indicate whether the efforts of the Jews against the Holy Prophet would meet with failure, as they did in the days of Solomon, or with success as in Babylon, the Quran says: these people are learning that which would harm them and do them no good; hinting that they will not be successful as in Babylon. Accordingly, the consequence of their hostile efforts against the Holy Prophet was that Chosroes, their only supporter, met his death at the hands of his son, and they themselves were exiled from Arabia in the time of ‘Umar. In the concluding portion of the verse, God adds: And they have certainly known that he who trafficks therein has no share of good in the Hereafter, meaning that a mischievous plotter never succeeds ultimately. The last clause, had they but known, throws a flood of light on how intensely God desires that His creatures should always take the right course and not be misled by mischievous people.

4:130.

Important Words:

طاب (as may be agreeable). طاب الشیء means, the thing was or became pleasing, delightful, agreeable or delicious. طابت به نفسی means, my mind or my soul became pleased and satisfied with it. طاب العیش لفلان means, life became pleasant and free from cares for such a one. طاب عن الشیء نفسا means, he willingly parted with the thing (Aqrab & Lane).

مثنی (two) is derived from ثنی. They say ثناہ i.e. he doubled it or folded it; or he turned one part of it upon another. ثنیsignifies the repetition of a thing, doing it one time after another, or a thing or affair done twice. مثنی means اثنان اثنان i.e. two and two; two and two together; or two at a time and two at a time. Similarly, ثلاث means, three and three; three and three together; or three at a time and three at a time; and so is the meaning of رباع (Lane & Aqrab). The expression مثنی و ثلاث و رباع would thus mean, two at a time, or three at a time, or four at a time.

تعولوا (do injustice) is derived from عال which means:(1) he had a family or a large family; (2) he sustained and supported the family; (3) he was or became poor; (4) he acted unjustly and wrongfully, or he deviated from the right course.

Commentary:

The verse is important inasmuch as it permits polygamy under special circumstances. Islam allows (though it certainly does not enjoin) a man to have more than one wife up to four at a time. As the permission concerning polygamy has been given in connection with the subject of orphans, it should be taken to be primarily based on the question of the care of that much-neglected class of society. There are cases when the interests of orphans can best be protected by marrying one or more wives from among the female wards or from other women as the exigencies of circumstances may require. This can generally happen in one of the following cases:

(1) A man has a number of orphans, including girls, to look after. He is unmarried and there is danger of his falling into temptation. In this case he should marry one or more girls, as the case may be, from among his wards and thus protect himself from falling into sin or from betraying his trust and acting wrongfully towards his wards.

(2) He is married, but his wife fails to treat the orphans properly. He may in such a case also marry one of his female wards so that they may have a good and separate home of their own.

(3) Some of his younger relations, e.g., brothers or sisters, become orphans, and he finds that he or his existing wife cannot properly look after them. In such an eventuality, he may marry a suitable woman of mature age who may treat them like a mother. It is on record that in similar circumstances Jabir, a young man and one of the Holy Prophet’s distinguished Companions, married a widow of mature age and when the Prophet asked him why he had not married a young girl, Jabir replied that he had done so that his wife might look after his brothers and sisters who were left orphans by the death of his father. The Holy Prophet was much pleased at this act of Jabir and prayed for him (Bukhari, ch. on Buyu‘).

(4) If a person is afraid that the orphans under his care being strangers to him, he may not treat them as kindly as he should do, he may establish direct relationship with them by marrying one of the female wards.

(5) If a person has a large number of orphans under his care and he finds that he cannot do full justice to them without marrying more wives than one, he is permitted to do so to the limit of four.

The words, two or three or four, signify that the last number marks the utmost limit. It is related that after this verse was revealed, the Holy Prophet asked those of his Companions who had more than four wives to keep any four of them they liked and divorce the rest, so that the number might not exceed four (Tirmidhi, ch. on Nikah).

A general note on polygamy is appropriate here. Though the verse mentions polygamy in connection with the subject of orphans, yet other situations may also arise in which polygamy may become a necessary remedy for many social or moral evils.

If only the objects of marriage be considered, the permission of the Quran to its followers to wed more wives than one, appears to be not only justifiable but in some cases desirable and even necessary; nay, in such cases it may become positively injurious to the best interests of individuals and of the community not to take advantage of this permission. According to the Quran, the objects of marriage are four, i.e. (1) protection against physical, moral and spiritual maladies; (2) peace of mind and the availability of a loving companion; (3) procreation of children; and (4) widening of the circle of relationship.

With respect to the first-mentioned object, the Quran says: "And allowed to you are those beyond that, (i.e. the cases mentioned in the earlier verses) that you seek them by means of your property—marrying them properly (and guarding yourselves against animal passions) and not committing fornication (and not indulging in unrestricted gratification) (4:25). The word محصنین occurring in the verse quoted above is derived from احصان which means, to seek protection from the attacks of an enemy by entering into a fort. Thus Islam regards marriage as a sort of fort, or a means of protection against moral and spiritual diseases. With respect to this object the Quran further says: They (your wives) are a garment for you and you are a garment for them (2:188). Now, the dress of a person serves a threefold purpose: (1) It protects him against the inclemency of weather; (2) it serves as an embellishment and adornment; and (3) it covers one’s private parts and any defects that may be in one’s physical formation. With respect to the second object the Quran says: And of His Signs is this, that He has created wives for you from among yourselves that you may find peace of mind in them and He has engendered love and tenderness between you (30:22). About the third object it says: Your wives are a tilth for you so approach your tilth when and how you like (2:224).

Now every one can easily conceive that one or all of the above-mentioned four objects of marriage, i.e. (1) protection against physical, moral and spiritual diseases; (2) procreation and propagation of the human race: (3) company of a life-long and loving companion and (4) widening of the circle of relationship are, sometimes, not realized in the case of one wife only. It is a hard fact which cannot be denied that there are persons whose sexual instinct is too strong to be satisfied with one wife. This is a physical necessity inherent in man and it is playing with fire to make light of this, the most powerful of all physical instincts. The only sane and proper course open to a man whose sexual powers are abnormally strong is to marry another, if one wife does not satisfy him. Such cases may be rare, but you cannot ignore their existence altogether. And a perfect religious system, as Islam claims to be, has to provide for the physical and spiritual requirements of all sorts of people. Again, if the wife of a person becomes a permanent invalid or suffers from a contagious disease, the object of marriage is certainly defeated if such a person does not marry another wife. Indeed, no course is left to him but either to contract another lawful marriage or, failing successfully to combat the attacks of his passions, to lead a dissolute life. And an ailing wife cannot make a good companion either, because, however worthy of regard and com- passion she may be, her company cannot give peace of mind to her husband in all respects. In the third instance, if the wife of a person happens to be barren, the natural and perfectly legitimate desire of the husband to have an issue to succeed him and perpetuate his name remains unfulfilled in the absence of a polygamous marriage. It is to meet the requirements of all such persons that Islam has allowed the contraction of plural matrimonial relations. If, however, in any of these cases a husband divorces his first wife, it would be a shame and disgrace for him. For instance, in the case of an invalid wife it would mean that he lived with her as long as she was whole and deserted her at a time when she most needed his protection. The only honourable course in such a case would be to look after the diseased wife tenderly and marry another woman who may fulfil the functions of a wife.

It will thus be seen that the objects of a polygamous marriage are, to a certain extent, the same as those of a monogamous marriage. When one or all of those objects are not realized by a monogamous marriage, a polygamous marriage becomes a necessity and is allowed. There are, however, other reasons which may also render it necessary for a person to have one or more wives in addition to the one whom he dearly loves and who also fulfils the objects of marriage. Those reasons are: (a) to protect orphans; (b) to provide husbands for marriageable widows and (c) to supplement the decreasing manhood of a family or community.

It is manifestly clear from the verse under comment in which permission is given to marry more wives than one that polygamy is resorted to particularly with a view to taking under one’s protection orphans left unprotected. The verse clearly states: If you fear that you will not be fair in dealing with orphans (under your protection), then marry of women as may be agreeable to you, two or three or four; and if you fear you will not deal justly (between your wives) then marry only one. The words hint that the mother of such orphans as are left in the guardianship of a person should preferably be married by him so that he should become directly related to, and more intimately connected with, them and thus become more interested in their welfare than he otherwise could be.

Again, the Quran says: And marry widows from among you (24:33). To provide husbands for widows is thus another object which the institution of polygamy fulfils. Muslims were perpetually engaged in fighting in the time of the Holy Prophet. Many fell in wars and left behind widows and orphans without near relations to look after them. The preponderance of women over men and an exceptionally large number of orphans with no one to look after them, which is the inevitable result of war, necessitated that to save the Muslim society from moral degeneration, polygamous marriages should be encouraged. The last World War also vindicated this useful institution of Islam. It left an abnormally large number of young women without husbands. Indeed, the great preponderance of females over males in the west, due to the appalling loss of manhood caused by the War, is responsible for the present awful laxity of morals which is eating into the vitals of western society. Young girls fail to get suitable husbands. But natural passions must be satisfied. The result is dissolution and depravity. In view of the moral depravity prevailing in many countries, who has the hardihood to deny the wisdom of the Islamic institution of polygamy? Many indescribable moral and physical evils have arisen in the west as the result of this preponderance of women over men, the only proper remedy for which is polygamy.

The institution of polygamy is also intended to meet the serious situation that follows in the wake of a war, when, besides other aspects of decline, the manhood of a nation becomes so depleted as to threaten national destruction. The fall of birth-rate, which is a potent cause of the decay of a people and from which some Western countries are badly suffering, can be effectively remedied only by resorting to polygamy. The West will never recover from the terrible moral and social diseases from which it is suffering as well as from the appalling numerical decline facing certain countries and communities unless, setting aside all false notions and false sentiments, it submits to the Islamic injunctions about polygamy. It is a sacrifice demanded of men and women alike—a sacrifice in which personal and passing sentiments are required to be partly ignored for the wider and permanent interests of whole communities and countries.

4:26; 5:6.

4:5; 60:11.

Important Words:

المحصنات (married) is the plural of محصنة and is derived from حصن meaning, he or it was or became inaccessible, fortified or protected against attack. حصن المرأة means, the woman was chaste, i.e. protected against moral or sexual sinfulness. احصنت المرأة means, the woman got married. محصنة therefore, means a married woman; a chaste woman who abstains from what is unlawful; a free or noble woman as opposed to a bondwoman. Similarly محصن means, a married man; chaste man who abstains from what is unlawful: a free or noble man. حصن means, a fort or a fortress. The word محصنات would, therefore, mean, women who have protected themselves by entering, as it were, the fortress of marriage. The word has been used in the Quran in all the different senses, i.e. (1) married women, (2) chaste women and (3) free women; but in the present verse it has been used in the sense of married women (Lane & Aqrab).

مسافحین (committing fornication) is the active participle from سافح which is derived from سفح. They say سفح الدم i.e. he shed blood or made it flow. سفح الدمع means, tears began to flow. Thus the word is both transitive and intransitive. سافحة means, he vied with the other party in shedding blood; he committed fornication. مسافحة means, a fornicator and مسافحة means, a fornicatress (Lane & Aqrab).

اجور (dowries) is the plural of اجر which means, reward or wages. اجر المرأة means, dowry of a woman (Taj). Also, in 33:51 the word has been used in the sense of dowry.

استمتعتم (the benefit you receive) is formed from متع. They say متعھا بکذا i.e. he gave her (his wife) such a thing. تمتع بالمرأةmeans, he benefited by the woman temporarily. استمتع بکذا means, he benefited by it for a long time. The Arabic idiom does not countenance the use of استمتاع with regard to a woman in the sense of temporary connection (Lisan). It must also be noted that whenever the noun تمتع (tamattu‘) is used to denote temporary connection with a woman, it is followed by the preposition با (ba) put before the word standing for the woman, as in the above example. But in the expression فما استمتعم به منھن to pronoun ھن referring to women is preceded by the preposition من.

ماملکت ایمانکم (what your right hands possess). The Arabs say ھذا ملک یمینی i.e. he or it is in the possession of my right hand, meaning, he or it is in my possession and I can deal with him or it as I like (Lisan & Aqrab). The expression ما ملکت ایمانکمgenerally signifies, men or women taken prisoner in war and being in the custody and control of their Muslim captors. In this verse, the expression means women prisoners only. The term has been used by the Quran in preference to عباد or اماء (slaves and bondwomen) to point to just and rightful possession, the word ایمان (right hands) also pointing to the same fact.

Commentary:

The expression, such as your right hands possess, has been used in the Quran with regard to those men or women who took part in aggressive wars against Islam and fell prisoners into the hands of Muslims. The context, however, shows that the expression used in the present verse means female prisoners of war. Islam does not allow women taken prisoner in ordinary wars to be taken as wives. This exceptional injunction becomes operative only when a hostile nation wages a religious war against Islam with a view to extirpating it and compelling Muslims to abandon their religion at the point of the sword, and treats their prisoners as slaves, as was done in the days of the Holy Prophet when the enemy took away Muslim women as prisoners and treated them as slaves. The Islamic injunction was thus only a retaliatory measure and also served the additional purpose of protecting the morals of captive women who were generally in large numbers and whom war separated from their kith and kin. A people who seek to compel others to forsake their religion at the point of the sword and reduce them to slavery are mere brutes and not respectable human beings. They must be paid back in their own coin in order to bring them to their senses. For a fuller exposition of this subject see General Introduction.

It may be noted that it is not permitted to take into marriage such female relations of a bondwoman who is treated as wife, as correspond to the relations of a free woman within the prohibited degree. For instance, the mothers, sisters, daughters etc. of such bondwomen cannot be taken in marriage.

The advocates of mut‘a (temporary marriage) have endeavoured in vain to infer its legality from this verse. The Quran and the Arabic language both contradict this manifestly unfounded inference. The misunderstanding about mut‘aseems to have arisen from the failure to understand the difference between the meanings of تمتع and استمتاع given under Important Words. The author of Lisanul-‘Arab quotes Zajjaj as saying: "This is a verse in the interpretation of which some men have committed a great blunder, owing to their ignorance of the Arabic language. They have inferred from it the legality of mut‘a which, by the consensus of opinion among Muslim theologians, has been declared to be unlawful, whereas the words simply mean marriage performed in accordance with the conditions mentioned above."

According to Arabic usage, the legality of mut‘a, as asserted by some people, cannot, therefore, be inferred from this verse. If there had been any reference to mut‘a, the preposition used ought to have been با (ba) and not من (min). Moreover, the expression used here is not تمتع but استمتع which possesses a sense different from that of the former word.

Nor can any inference in favour of mut‘a be drawn from the expression اجورھن which, as explained under Important Words, means "their dowries", in which sense it has been used in the Quran elsewhere also (33:51).

On principle, the dowry must be paid immediately at marriage; but with the wife’s consent the payment can be suitably deferred. The husband can increase the amount of the dowry later, if he so desires; but he cannot decrease it except with the permission of the wife or the qadi.

4:16, 20; 24:20.

Important Words:

طولا (to afford) is noun from طال i.e. he or it was or became long, tall or high. طول means, bounty or gift; ampleness of means; excellence; excess or increase; power or ability; wealth or competence. It may also mean, dowry or expenses of marriage (Lane, Aqrab & Mufradat).

اخدان (secret paramours) is the plural of خدن. They say خادنه i.e. he was or became his friend or companion; or he was or became his secret or private friend. اخدان means friends or secret friends; amorous companions or associates; companions or associates affected with sensual appetency (Lane & Mufradat).

العنت (sins) is the noun-infinitive from عنت i.e. he fell into a difficulty; or he committed a sin or a crime or an act of disobedience; or he committed fornication or adultery. عنت therefore, means, severe difficulty or hardship; a state of perdition; a corrupt or evil state or conduct; a sin or crime, or an act of disobedience deserving punishment; a wrong action (intentional or unintentional); fornication or adultery (Lane & Aqrab). See also 3:119, 2:221.

Commentary:

As God attaches great value to the faith of a Muslim, He does not like it to become impaired by his marrying disbelieving women. Hence the condition that even the bondwoman a Muslim may marry should be a believer.

The words, you are all one from another, are meant to raise believing bondwomen in the estimation of Muslims, who are hereby required not to despise them or treat them with contempt on account of their so-called lower status.

The words, half the punishment, mean 50 stripes, the punishment for (unmarried) free women being 100 stripes. See also 24:3. The word half shows that the verse refers to a punishment which can be halved, and not to stoning to death, which was inflicted on married free women. The punishment definitely prescribed in the Quran (24:3) for a fornicator and a fornicatress is only a hundred stripes, but as the Holy Prophet differentiated between married and unmarried persons, inflicting on the former the punishment of stoning to death, the aforesaid verse has been taken as only applying to unmarried persons.

The expression, this is for him among you who fears lest he should commit sin, shows that Muslims are enjoined to avoid, as far as possible, contracting conjugal relations with bond women taken prisoner from belligerent disbelievers. This is to be done only if, on the one hand, one is not able to marry a free woman and, on the other, by remaining unmarried, one fears to fall into sin. The Muslim Empire of Baghdad fell to pieces because the khalifahs took to contracting conjugal relations with bondwomen. The incompetent princes born of them ruined the State. In most cases, marital relations with bondwomen are calculated to have a demoralizing effect on both husbands and children.

6:152; 7:34; 17:24; 23:60.

Important Words:

جار الجنب (neighbour that is a stranger) is a compound word made up of جار (neighbour) and جنب (stranger or one distant). The compound word thus means, a neighbour who is not from one’s own tribe or community; a distant neighbour (Aqrab & Mufradat).

صاحب بالجنب (companion by your side) is also a compound word made up of صاحب (companion) and جنب (one’s side). The compound word thus means, the immediate neighbour or the near neighbour; or simply companion or co-worker or colleague (Aqrab, Lisan & Mufradat).

Commentary:

After laying down in the preceding verses that one should be kind to one’s wife, in the present verse the Quran enjoins a Muslim to make his kindness so comprehensive as to include in its scope the whole of mankind, from parents who are the nearest, to strangers who are the farthest removed.

The Arabic expression rendered as, neighbour that is a kinsman, may also mean: (1) the neighbour that lives near; (2) the neighbour that is kindly.

Similarly, the words, neighbour that is a stranger, may also include: (1) the neighbour that lives at a distance; (2) the neighbour that is not kindly.

The expression, companion by your side, may mean:(1) wife or husband; (2) comrade on a journey; (3) fellow-partner in a trade or a co-worker; (4) associate; (5) immediate neighbour.

The words, those whom your right hands possess, may refer to slaves, bondwomen, servants and even subordinates.

A person who does not carry out the Divine commandments contained in this verse is condemned as "proud and boastful" because, instead of doing good to others and being kind to them, he looks down upon them and behaves arrogantly. The very act of abstaining from being kind to one’s fellow beings, whether relations or neighbours or strangers, is an act of pride condemned by Islam.

2:211; 25:8.

Commentary:

The question, Why has not an angel been sent down to him, implies a desire on the part of the disbelievers to be visited by an angel whom they might see and be thus convinced of the divine mission of the Prophet. The Quran exposes their folly by replying that although the angels of God do come to the Prophet, yet when they visit disbelievers and are seen by them, they invariably come with Divine punishment. Such angels appeared at the Battle of Badr, when, to quote the expression of the Quran, the matter was decided (2:211). See also the succeeding verse.

Commentary:

Another possible form of the appearance of an angel is that he be sent to this world as a Messenger. But this could not improve things; for in that case, to make his mission to mankind worth anything, he should appear in the form of a man; but if he were to appear to them in the form of a man, then the people would entertain the same doubts about

his heavenly mission as they were now doing about that of the Holy Prophet.

11:32.

10:16; 46:10.

Commentary:

The words, I do not say to you, I possess the treasures of Allah, imply that when the Quran says that the Messengers of God are the announcers of glad tidings, this should not be construed to mean that as soon as a person believes in a Prophet of God, he acquires wealth. He will have to wait for the favours of God to come at their appointed time.

The words, nor do I say to you, I am an angel, here imply that it is not in the power of the Prophet to bring down punishment, for he is not "an angel of punishment."

After the above declarations it might be asked what good there was in following the Prophet when worldly favours took time in coming and when the Prophet was so powerless against his enemies. The Quran answers this implied question by saying that the getting of a treasure was not the only boon which one could desire. The perfect guidance which was received through the Prophet was a great blessing in itself for those who accepted the guidance were like one who possessed eyes, while those who rejected it were like one who had no eyes, and the blind and the seeing could never be alike. These are matters to be reflected upon and pondered over.

Important Words:

ملکوت (kingdom) is derived from ملك i.e. he possessed complete ownership of, and power over. ملکوت means, sovereignty; dominion; great kingdom; power to deal with a thing as one like; the place of holy spirits in the heavens (Aqrab). The word ملکوت is specifically used about the kingdom or dominion of God (Mufradat). See also 1:4.

Commentary:

The word ملکوت (kingdom), as shown above, is peculiar to the dominion of God. Thus the words, And thus did We show Abraham the kingdom of the heavens and the earth, mean, We showed Abraham the power and control which We exercise over every part of the universe. Shihabud-Din Suhrawardi, a great Muslim divine, says in his famous work, the ‘Awariful-Ma‘arif, that when a spiritual wayfarer reaches this stage, i.e. when he is made to witness the sovereignty of God, he is, as it were, spiritually reborn and that no person can be admitted into the presence of God until he has attained this stage. When, however, a man has attained this stage of certainty and conviction, doubt cannot enter his mind, for then he lives in the very presence of God.

2:37; 20:121.

Important Words:

وسوس (whispered evil suggestions) literally means, he spoke in a low voice; he whispered. They say وسوس له الشیطان i.e. Satan spoke to him something evil in which there is no good. وسوس الرجل means, the man’s reason was affected and he spoke in a disorderly manner. وسواس (wiswas) means, the act of whispering; evil suggestion. وسواس (waswas) with different vowel point means melancholia; Satan (Aqrab).

سوآتھما (their shame). سوآت is the plural of سوءة which is derived from ساء which means, it was or became evil, foul or abominable. سوءة means, any evil, foul, unseemly or abominable saying or action or habit or practice; any saying or action of which one is ashamed when it appears, and which one would like to hide; any disgracing action or thing; the external portion of the organs of generation of a man or of a woman; the anus; corpse or dead body; nakedness (Lane & Aqrab). The word is also sometimes figuratively applied to such weaknesses of a man as lie concealed within him.

Commentary:

As the place where Adam was made to reside has been metaphorically described in the Quran as a garden, therefore in the description that follows the metaphor is continued and Adam is represented as forbidden to approach a certain 'tree', which was not a tree in its literal sense but a certain family or tribe from which he was bidden to keep aloof, because the members of that family were his enemies and they would have spared no pains to do him harm. For the meaning of the word شجرة (tree) see 2:36.

Another reading of the word ملکین (malakain), i.e. two angels, is (malikain) ملکین i.e. two kings or rulers. This reading is corroborated by 20:121, i.e. Shall I lead thee to the tree of eternity, and to a kingdom which shall never become decayed.

The wicked man who is here represented as Satan worked his mischievous plan as follows: He came to Adam and said that the reason why God had forbidden him to have anything to do with the family referred to was none other than this that its members were inimically disposed to him and that they would have conspired to bring about his downfall, if he had then contracted intimate relations with them. But as the family had subsequently become friendly towards him, the danger no longer existed; nay, the family would now even prove a source of strength for him, God’s prohibition, he pleaded, was not meant for all time, and the condition attached to it having come to an end, the prohibition also ceased to operate. In this way, this Satan succeeded in deceiving Adam and he assured him on oath that he was his well-wisher (7:22). Adam wavered and was led into thinking that as the reasons for the prohibition had indeed ceased to exist, the prohibition itself was no longer operative. That was an error of judgement on Adam’s part. He did not wilfully disobey God’s commandment. Elsewhere the Quran says, He (Adam) forgot to observe Our commandment and We found in him no determination to do evil (20:116).